JUDGMENT DIPAK MISRA, J. - The factual background, the relief claimed and the questions of law being similar, the three writ applications, for the sake of convenience and clarity, were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that section 30 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990 (Act 20 of 1990) whereby column 3 of entry 14 of Schedule I of the Act has been amended and the notification issued under annexure A on June 28, 1990 reducing the rate of tax on exercise books relating to entry 14 as ultra vires being violative of articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution. For the sake of convenience the facts in M.P. No. 229 of 1992 are adumbrated. The petitioners are registered under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as dealers of exercise books. They manufacture exercise books from paper purchased from dealers of paper within M.P. and also from outside the State. According to the petitioners entry No. 14 of Schedule I initially, exempted "exercise books" from sales tax under the Act and the said exemption was absolute, unconditional and without any exception. The said position continued till September 15, 1990. An amendment was brought into section 30 of the Act and in the column 3 of the entry 14 of Schedule I the following words were inserted : "Exercise books when sold by a dealer registered under this Act and such dealer proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority at the time of assessment that they had been manufactured out of writing or printing paper purchased from a dealer registered under this Act." After this amendment, the reduced rate of tax on "exercise books" at 5 percent was only permissible if the conditions were satisfied. 3. We have dealt with the validity of the provisions though in the meantime the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 has been repealed on coming into force M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. Under section 61 of the Adhiniyam the repeal shall not affect the previous operations of the Act or affect any right privilege/obligation or liability acquired. 3. We have dealt with the validity of the provisions though in the meantime the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 has been repealed on coming into force M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. Under section 61 of the Adhiniyam the repeal shall not affect the previous operations of the Act or affect any right privilege/obligation or liability acquired. As the petitioners have prayed for refund of the tax collected on "exercise books" on the ground that the same has been prepared from the paper purchased from outside. The claim of the petitioners was required to be adjudicated and hence we have addressed ourselves to the validity of provisions which granted some exemption in the rate of tax on certain condition. 4. It is put forth in the writ application that because of the amendment of the notification a situation has emerged to the effect that when the petitioners manufacture "exercise books" out of paper purchased from dealers registered in M.P. there would be exemption of sales tax as per the notification but when paper is purchase from a dealer registered in some other States full amount of sales tax would be paid on sale of "exercise books" made from such paper. It is averred in the application that the amendment and the notification are ultra vires inasmuch as they violate articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution as it obstructs and affects the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India and also creates a restriction in movement of goods. Challenge is also to the effect that the provisions come within the inhibition of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Challenge is also to the effect that the provisions come within the inhibition of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Because of what we are going to state later on, it is essential to set forth the relevant prayers made in the petition : "(i) That section 30 of the Amendment Act and the impugned notification, annexure A, may be declared to be ultra vires and unconstitutional; (ii) That the respondents be restrained from levying, imposing or collecting any tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act on 'exercise books' made from paper purchased from dealers in other States during the pendency of this petition; (iii) That if any such assessments are made and tax is recovered during the pendency of the present petition, from any of the petitioners, the respondents may be directed to refund the same to the petitioners together with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum; (iv) That such further or other writ, direction or order may be issued as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the present case." 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending inter alia, that the notification was issued as a representation was made by the Merchant Association of M.P. indicating that in view of the higher rates of sales tax in M.P. on paper unscrupulous dealers are being encouraged by converting papers into the "exercise books" and the same is exempted from the sale tax in the State and thereby depriving the State about 75 per cent of sales tax on paper. Taking into consideration all the aspects the State Government reduced the rate of sales tax on paper and levied sales tax on "exercise books". While doing so, it is averred in the return, the view expressed by the apex Court in the case of Maharaja Book Depot v. State of Gujarat AIR 1979 SC 180 , where it has been held that the "exercise books" are nothing but paper, was kept in view. Accordingly the State Government thought it appropriate to grant partial exemption to the "exercise books" prepared out of paper purchased from a dealer of M.P. to avoid double taxation. It is also averred that while exempting the "exercise books" a condition was imposed by amending the Act that papers must be purchased from a dealer registered under the Act. Accordingly the State Government thought it appropriate to grant partial exemption to the "exercise books" prepared out of paper purchased from a dealer of M.P. to avoid double taxation. It is also averred that while exempting the "exercise books" a condition was imposed by amending the Act that papers must be purchased from a dealer registered under the Act. It is also stated that the rate of tax was 12 per cent which has been reduced to 5 per cent by the notification under the challenge. It has been highlighted according to the entry No. 14 of the Schedule I, the exemption has come into effect from October 1, 1990. It has also been put forth that in effecting the aforesaid amendment the object of the State Government was to solve the difficulties faced by the dealers and consumers and accordingly the rate of tax on sale of paper was reduced and tax on "exercise books" on certain conditions has been partially reduced. It is also specifically stated that if the paper is purchased from unregistered dealers within the State and the "exercise books" are made out of the said paper then the said "exercise books" are also not exempted from payment of the tax and the dealer is required to pay at the full rate, i.e., 12 per cent. The plea of violation of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution have been controverted by the answering respondents. 6. We have heard Mr. A. C. Dhande, Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Dhande, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A. S. Jha, Deputy Advocate-General for the State. 7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be categorised into two compartments, namely, the imposition of sales tax on sale of "exercise books" is violative of article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as when books have been made tax-free on the ground that they advance educational purpose, there is no justification not to exempt and include the same in exempted categories as they subserve the purpose of education being utilised by the students. The other ground of attack to substantiate the discrimination under article 14 it has been put forth that the sale of "exercise books" through co-operative societies by the Government and the exercise books sold by the private sector is different because of imposition of sales tax. The other ground of attack to substantiate the discrimination under article 14 it has been put forth that the sale of "exercise books" through co-operative societies by the Government and the exercise books sold by the private sector is different because of imposition of sales tax. The second limb of submission relates to challenge of the notification on the ground that it comes within the inhibition of article 310 and 304(a) of the Constitution. 8. As far as the assailment on the anvil of article 14 is concerned, we notice that there is no discrimination as the books and exercise books can never be equated because they belong to distinct categories. The principles behind grant of exemption of books or making books tax-free cannot be made applicable to the "exercise books". Similarly, supply of exercise books by the Government through the co-operative societies also has a purpose because certain concession is given to the co-operative societies as a matter of policy and they would not be regarded as discriminatory. We also hasten to add that except making some bald allegations in the petition nothing has been put forth to substantiate to bring about the discrimination to attract the violation of article 14. In view of this, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned notification infringes the principles of equality as enjoined under article 14 of the Constitution. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the notification impedes free-flow of trade and thereby violates articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution. On a perusal of the amending provision and the notification which have been brought on record we find that the State Government has reduced the rate of tax on "exercise books" to 5 per cent if it is sold by a dealer registered under the Act on his proving to the satisfaction of the assessing authority at the time of assessment that they have been manufactured out of printing paper purchased from a dealer registered under the Act. Thus, the condition precedent for granting exemption that the exercise books must be manufactured out of writing or printing paper purchased from a dealer registered under the Act. Thus, the condition precedent for granting exemption that the exercise books must be manufactured out of writing or printing paper purchased from a dealer registered under the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that because of imposition of this condition the manufacturer of exercise books who manufactures the exercise books out of papers purchased by them from the dealers outside the State of M.P. is not entitled to avail the exemption where the manufacturers of the same article are entitled to avail exemption solely on the basis of that they have purchased papers from dealers under the Act. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners it is essential to refer to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras [1963] 14 STC 355 : AIR 1963 SC 928 wherein it has been ruled thus : "10. It is therefore now well-settled that taxing laws can be restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse, if they hamper the flow of trade and if they are not what can be termed to be compensatory taxes or regulatory measures. Sales tax, of the kind under consideration here, cannot be said to be a measure regulating any trade or a compensatory tax levied for the use of trading facilities. Sales tax, which has the effect of discriminating between goods of one State and goods of another, may affect the free-flow of trade and it will then offend against article 301 and will be valid only if it comes within the terms of article 304(a). 11. Article 304(a) enables the Legislature of a State to make laws affecting trade, commerce and intercourse. It enables the imposition of taxes on goods from other States if similar goods in the State are subjected to similar taxes, so as not to discriminate between the goods manufactured or produced in that State and the goods which are imported from other States. It enables the imposition of taxes on goods from other States if similar goods in the State are subjected to similar taxes, so as not to discriminate between the goods manufactured or produced in that State and the goods which are imported from other States. This means that if the effect of the sales tax on tanned hides or skins imported from outside is that the latter becomes subject to a higher tax by the application of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 16 of the Rules, then the tax is discriminatory and unconstitutional and must be struck down." In the case of Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305; (1988) 1 SCC 743 the apex Court held as follows : "There can be no dispute that taxation is a deterrent against free-flow. As a result of favourable or unfavourable treatment by way of taxation, the course of flow of trade gets regulated either adversely or favourably. If the scheme which Part XIII guarantees has to be preserved in national interest, it is necessary that the provisions in the article must be strictly complied with. One has to recall the farsighted observations of Gajendragadkar, J., in Atiabari Tea Co.'s case [1961] 1 SCR 809 and the observations then made obviously apply to cases of the type which is now before us." Their Lordships proceeded further to lay down as under : "14. Variation of the rate of inter-State sales tax does affect free trade and commerce and creates a local preference which is contrary to the scheme of Part XIII of the Constitution." In another decision rendered in the case of Shri Mahavir Oil Mills v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [1997] 104 STC 148 (SC); (1996) 11 SCC 39 their Lordships laid down as follows : "25. Now, what is the ratio of the decisions of this Court so far as clause (a) of article 304 is concerned ? In our opinion, it is this : the States are certainly free to exercise the power to levy taxes on goods imported from other States/Union territories but this freedom, or power, shall not be so exercised as to bring about a discrimination between the imported goods and the similar goods manufactured or produced in that State. The clause deals only with discrimination by means of taxation; it prohibits it. The clause deals only with discrimination by means of taxation; it prohibits it. The prohibition cannot be extended beyond the power of taxation. It means in the immediate context that States are free to encourage and promote the establishment and growth of industries within their States by all such means as they think proper but they cannot, in that process, subject the goods imported from other States to a discriminatory rate of taxation, i.e., a higher rate of sales tax vis-a-vis similar goods manufactured/produced within that State and sold within that State. Prohibition is against discriminatory taxation by the States. It matters not how this discrimination is brought about." Recently in the case of Loharn Steel Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] 105 STC 30 (SC); (1997) 2 SCC 37 their Lordships while considering the discrimination between goods manufactured within the State and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the earlier judgments registered the view as under : "8. Article 304 thus enables the Legislature of a State to impose tax on goods manufactured within the State as also goods imported from other States into the State. But in doing so the State cannot discriminate between goods so imported and goods manufactured or produced locally. This article came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras [1963] 14 STC 355; [1963] Supp 2 SCR 435. The court said that sales tax which has the effect of discriminating between goods of one State and goods of another, may affect the free-flow of trade and it will then offend against article 301 and will be valid only if it comes within the terms of article 304(a). In the above case by virtue of rule 16 which had been framed under the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, tanned hides and skins imported from outside the State and sold within the State were subject to a higher rate of tax than hides or skins tanned and sold within the State. This Court upheld the contention of the appellant that such an imposition would violate article 304(a) of the Constitution and would be bad in law." 10. This Court upheld the contention of the appellant that such an imposition would violate article 304(a) of the Constitution and would be bad in law." 10. At this juncture we may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of State of U.P. v. Laxmi Paper Mart [1997] 105 STC 1 (SC); (1997) 2 SCC 697 wherein their Lordships referred to the decision in the case of Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid & Co. [1963] 14 STC 355 (SC); AIR 1963 SC 928 . It is to be noted here that their Lordships referred to the decision of the High Court which had dealt with three categories of cases, namely, exercise books made from paper purchased within U.P.; exercise books made from outside the State of U.P. and brought into and sold in U.P., and exercise books made in U.P. but out of the paper purchased from the outside of the State U.P. While dealing with these three categories their Lordships observed that the High Court had held that so far as the second category is concerned it is hit by article 301 read with article 304(a) of the Constitution. The High Court had not found fault with the third category, but as the dealer had not approached the apex Court their Lordships did not consider whether the decision of the High Court in respect to the third category was correct or not. Their Lordship only dealt with the category No. 2, i.e. "exercise books" made outside the State U.P. and brought into and sold in U.P. In this context their Lordship expressed thus : "In our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that exempting the exercise books produced in the State and subjecting the exercise books produced outside the State but sold in Uttar Pradesh to sales tax at 5 per cent is discriminatory and, therefore, offends clause (a) of article 304. The decision of this Court in Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras [1963] 14 STC 355; [1963] Suppl 2 SCR 435 clearly governs the issue. The said decision considered a situation where the State of Madras subjected tanned hides and skins imported from outside the State of Madras and sold within the State of Madras to a higher rate of tax than the tax imposed on hides or skins tanned and sold within the State. The said decision considered a situation where the State of Madras subjected tanned hides and skins imported from outside the State of Madras and sold within the State of Madras to a higher rate of tax than the tax imposed on hides or skins tanned and sold within the State. (It had also subjected the hides or skin imported from outside the State after purchase in their raw condition and then tanned inside the State to a higher rate of tax than the hides or skins purchased in raw condition in the State and tanned in the State)." Mr. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State, has heavily placed reliance the aforesaid decision to buttress his submission that the apex Court has not held that if the exercise books are prepared from paper purchased within the State the same would be hit by article 301 read with article 304(a) of the Constitution. 11. The question in essence is that whether State of M.P. can discriminate between the manufacturers of exercise books who get the paper from outside and make exercise books and the manufacturers who prepare the exercise books from the paper purchased from the dealer registered under the Act. There can be another type of manufacturers who manufacture exercise books outside the State of M.P. from the paper purchased in that State and sell in M.P. and there may be dealers who may import exercise books from outside the State. Thus, eventually it is the exemption on exercise books which surfaces. According to Mr. Jha, as tax has been paid on paper by the manufacturer of exercise books when he purchased the paper from a dealer registered under the Act which necessarily means he must be a dealer in the State of M.P., the exemption of exercise books is justified as double taxation is to be avoided. The question that requires consideration is whether payment of tax on raw material purchased within the State would justify exemption ? At this juncture we may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Andhra Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka [1990] 78 STC 243 (SC); 1990 Supp SCC 617. In this case the dealer purchased iron scrap from dealers inside and outside the State of Karnataka for the purpose of manufacturing iron ingots, steel rounds and tor-steel. These manufactured goods were sold mostly within the State. In this case the dealer purchased iron scrap from dealers inside and outside the State of Karnataka for the purpose of manufacturing iron ingots, steel rounds and tor-steel. These manufactured goods were sold mostly within the State. The Commercial Tax Officer exempted the sales turnover of the manufactured goods which had suffered tax on iron scraps but later on the Commissioner in exercise of power of revision issued notice to show cause prima facie observing that there had been no verification as to whether inputs had suffered taxes. At that juncture the dealer therein filed a writ application to quash the notice to show cause challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions as violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution. The apex Court noted the factual matrix and the grievance of the appellant therein in paragraph 6 of the judgment which is reproduced below : "As already stated the appellant purchases iron scrap both from local registered dealers and also from the dealers outside the State of Karnataka and manufactures ingots and sells the same mostly within the State of Karnataka. The constitutional validity of the abovesaid provision is challenged on the ground that while the appellant's sale of ingots manufactured out of locally purchased scrap will not be subjected to tax, the appellant's sale of ingots manufactured out of scrap purchased from outside the State of Karnataka would be subjected to tax." 12. After referring to the aforesaid factual matrix their Lordships referred to the decision rendered in the case of Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid & Co's case [1963] 14 STC 355 (SC); AIR 1963 SC 928 and following the ratio of the said case and distinguishing the decisions rendered in the cases of State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mukaliar [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); AIR 1969 SC 147 , Rattan Lal and Co. v. Assessing Authority [1970] 25 STC 136 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 1742 and Associated Tanners v. Commercial Tax Officer [1986] 62 STC 1 (SC); (1986) 2 SCC 479 held as follows : "In the three decisions in Nataraja Mudaliar's case [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); [1968] 3 SCR 829, Rattan Lal & Co.'s case [1970] 25 STC 136 (SC); [1969] 2 SCR 544 and Associated Tanners' case [1986] 62 STC 1 (SC), this Court held that so long the rates applicable are in accordance with the section 8 no discrimination would arise and none of the provisions of Part XII of the Constitution could be said to have been offend. But the case on hand is not one arising out of the Central Act. The tax was levied under the State Act in respect of steel semis. The State Act exempted steel semis which have been manufactured out of iron scrap which have suffered tax but not the other categories where the scrap had not suffered tax at that stage. This is directly covered by the decision in A. T. B. Mehtab's case [1963] 14 STC 355 (SC); [1963] Supp 2 SCR 435 and that decision has not been dissented from in Nataraja Mudaliar case [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); [1968] 3 SCR 829 or Rattan Lal & Co's case [1970] 25 STC 136 (SC); [1969] 2 SCR 544. The decision in A. T. B. Mehtab's case [1963] 14 STC 355 (SC); [1963] Supp 2 SCR 435, is by a Constitution Bench and had not been dissented so far in any case. The ratio of the judgment being fully applicable, the judgment of the High Court under appeal is not acceptable." From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is luminously clear that the purchase of raw material inside the State to achieve the end-product cannot be a basis to justify exemption. As the facts reveal the exemption is granted on the "exercise book" solely on the basis of that that dealers in "exercise books" must have made the same out of the paper purchased inside the State of M.P. If a dealer has utilised the papers purchased from outside the State he is not entitled to exemption. Thus, in our view such grant of exemption offends conscience provisions of articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution. 13. We must hasten to add that Mr. Thus, in our view such grant of exemption offends conscience provisions of articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution. 13. We must hasten to add that Mr. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate-General has strenuously urged that the Legislature had introduced the amendment to avoid double taxation as a dealer who purchases paper inside the State of M.P. pays tax on paper and, the exercise book being not a different and distinct commodity from paper, he has been partially exempted to pay sales tax on "exercise books". To elucidate, if someone has not paid tax on paper, he is required to pay tax on "exercise books" and there is no unjustifiability in the same. To buttress his submission he has referred us to the decision rendered in the case of Maharaja Book Depot AIR 1979 SC 180 . The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the State has the inbuilt fallacy inasmuch as "exercise book" is a different product altogether than the paper. In this context we may refer to the decision rendered in the case of Laxmi Paper Mart v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1975] 35 STC 164 wherein a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that "exercise books" are goods which are commercially different from paper which is commercially known as an article by itself. At this juncture we may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Macnell & Barry Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 76 (SC) wherein the Lordship distinguishing the case of Maharaja Book Depot AIR 1979 SC 180 , held as follows : "Learned counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax has invited our attention to Maharaja Book Depot v. State of Gujarat AIR 1979 SC 180 ; [1979] 2 SCR 138, where this Court laid down that exercise books were included within the term 'paper' mentioned in sub-clause (vii) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and in item 13 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers (Regulation) Order, 1971. The learned Judges supported their conclusion by reference to the object and purpose of the Act and the Regulation Order. That case, in our opinion, is distinguishable from the instant case. The learned Judges supported their conclusion by reference to the object and purpose of the Act and the Regulation Order. That case, in our opinion, is distinguishable from the instant case. On the contrary, more to the point is the decision of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. [1974] 33 STC 333 where it was held that stencil paper was not paper within the meaning of serial No. 7-A of the Schedule to the notification issued by the State Government under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947." 14. In this context, we may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Sri Jagannath Industries v. State of Orissa [1995] 97 STC 375 wherein the Full Bench of the High Court of Orissa placing reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner Sales Tax, U.P. v. Macneill & Barry Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 76 (SC), and also referring to the decision in the case of Laxmi Paper Mart [1975] 35 STC 164 (All.) laid down as follows : "Having regard to the totality of the background, it seems to us that the process undertaken by the petitioners in preparing exercise and bound books out of paper is nothing but manufacturing process." 15. In view of this foregoing analysis, we are of the considered view that the reasons in the counter-affidavit and submission canvassed by the learned Deputy Advocate-General to treat the two items, namely, paper and exercise books as one and the same do not merit consideration. There remains no iota of doubt that an "exercise book" is a distinct article than paper. 16. In view of our preceding analysis, we are of the considered view that the amendment brought under section 30 of the Act whereby column 3 of entry 14 of the Schedule I of the Act was amended is ultra vires of the provisions contained in articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution. Because of this declaration of ours the exemption which has been allowed to the dealers under certain conditions could not have been made available. 17. Now to the grant of relief to the petitioners. As has been noted earlier, the petitioners were not granted exemption as they had not purchased the papers from the dealers under the Act. Because of this declaration of ours the exemption which has been allowed to the dealers under certain conditions could not have been made available. 17. Now to the grant of relief to the petitioners. As has been noted earlier, the petitioners were not granted exemption as they had not purchased the papers from the dealers under the Act. In that event they had been taxed at the prevailing rate. Hence they had prayed for refund of the excess tax with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. We have already held that partial exemption reducing the rate of "exercise books" made out of paper purchased from the dealer under the Act is unconstitutional. The question requires determination what relief should be granted to the petitioner. It is to be noted that under the new Act there has been total exemption of "exercise books". As the petitioner had collected tax from the consumers and the burden has already passed on, the question of refund does not arise. The prayer of refund is not acceptable as that would amount to unjust enrichment of the petitioners. Hence the said prayer is refused. 17. The writ petitions are accordingly of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.